How can it be irrational to act in your own self interest? You cant give an example of acting in your self interest that harms you. If you give an example where acting in your self interest harms others, you have to explain why it's irrational to harm others. You have not done so.

If we should act against our own self interest because there is a possibility that there will be indirect benefits to us as our "Goodness" reverberates thru society. Then this is an appeal to our self interest. You cant say that we ought to act against our self interest because it is in our interest

This only holds up if acting in self interest is what is always rational. If it's assumed being moral is in itself our goal "b/c" it will bring happiness, then being moral is always in our self interest. Edit: added "b/c", check below for a more detailed argument.

Sorry if that's how it came out. Let me try this way. 1. Being moral brings us happines. 2. Doing what makes us happy is rational. 3 Doing what makes us unhappy is irrational. 4 Being immoral makes us unhappy. 5. Therefore, being immoral is irrational.

You are still begging the question with premise 1. You are equating acting towards happiness with being rational, which is fair. but you are simply asserting that being moral is what makes us happy. thereby simply asserting that being moral IS rational by definition.

For example, someone who takes credit for another's work to get a raise. Socrates would say that the worker has enslaved himself to his greed and isn't being rational, which would bring him satisfaction.

Another example would be a thief in the street who is hungry & takes what is needed to survive. Is it truly immoral? Depends what you read. Assuming so, the question would be is it rational to preserve yourself & steal instead of going hungry and staying moral. happy and dead or alive and enslaved.

If he would receive negative consequences from his fruad to get a raise, such as guilt or other psychological effects then you are simply giving 1 example where it is irrational to be immoral. when the point of contention is that it is SOMETIMES rational to be immoral.

In that action we may say he was acting in accordance with his greed, a desire, therefore not reason. So, yes the worker was a slave to greed by not keeping with his true goal of happiness by remaining moral.

You cannot say what other's 'true goals' are. Additionally, if he is seeking money, the purpose of money is to be able to spend it, it is likely that he is going to use the money he used 'immoral' means to obtain, on something he believes will make him happier. Whether it's charity, or a new TV etc.

By acting against your self interest you are indirectly acting for him. By being good you'll increase someone trust in society and this person may be giving your wallet back to the authority istead of kepping it.

If we should act against our own self interest because there is a possibility that there will be indirect benefits to us as our "Goodness" reverberates thru society. Then this is an appeal to our self interest. You cant say that we ought to act against our self interest because it is in our interest

People's preference with how immediate returns on their actions should be, is called time preference. EG: some people are willing to accept $10 today rather than $15 next week. Pointing out that some actions pay out now with future costs does not show that it is always rational to be moral.

There are different moral philosophies. Any moral structure is going to instruct you to do X or refrain from Y. There are scenarios in which X harms you, or Y benefits you. Therefore, it is sometimes in your interest to act in ways that are considered immoral.

Suppose you had to kill either the president or two people, but you had to kill one of the two people. You'd rationally kill the two people, although you immorally saved fewer lives than you could have.